“Justice Text”
COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial of the lawsuit between the parties, the file was examined and discussed, upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s lawyer, within the period of the verdict given for the rejection of the lawsuit due to the reasons written in the verdict.
DECISION
The plaintiff stated that, based on the power of attorney he gave to the defendant lawyer, enforcement proceedings were initiated for seven promissory notes, together with the opening costs of the files. 1. In accordance with the precautionary seizure decision taken for the file no. 2009/6906 E. of the Enforcement Directorate, the security deposit amounting to 6,675.00 TL was hand-delivered, the security deposits were withdrawn but not returned to him, … 1. Enforcement Directorate no. 2008/981 E. He learned from the debtor that the 500.00 TL collected from his file on 13.02.2009 was not given to him, that the file was closed. claims that despite the withdrawal from all files, the payment and security expenses were not paid. and, without prejudice to its rights regarding the surplus, the defendant requested a decision to collect the sum of 8.925.00 TL, which is the sum of the payments made to the lawyer and the non-refundable security deposit, from the defendant.
The defendant made expenses for the follow-up files, the plaintiff collected one of the enforcement files without his knowledge and waived it without informing him, … 1. The attorney’s fee was not paid even though the sales transactions were made in the file no. declared that the right of imprisonment was used to secure the receivables as a proxy due to the failure to pay the attorney’s fee in the file where the sale was made and demanded the dismissal of the case.
The court decided to dismiss the case; The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff.
1- The plaintiff, the defendant lawyer learned from the debtor of the file that the payment was made in the follow-up file, which was collected and closed, and when this situation was notified to the defendant and the return of the collection fee and security fees was requested, it was not accepted when he was asked to sign a release, and as a result of the defendant lawyer’s complaint to the bar association, the unpaid collection and payment due to his withdrawal from the files. filed the lawsuit for the return of the security deposits. The defendant, on the other hand, defended that the plaintiff used his right to imprisonment on the grounds that he made a collection and waived in one of the follow-up files without his knowledge, the expenses incurred by him in the follow-up file and the attorney’s fee arising from another execution file for which the sale was made was not paid. It was decided to dismiss the case on the ground that he had the right. It is understood that the plaintiff implicitly dismissed the defendant by filing a complaint with the bar association. Although the court decided on the basis of the decision on the expert report, the expert report was not suitable for auditing and the report was prepared with abstract justification. In this case, a new expert report should be obtained by the court and a decision should be made by evaluating whether the defendant has exercised his right to imprisonment in accordance with the procedure.
2-According to the reason for the annulment, it is not deemed necessary to examine the plaintiff’s other appeals for now.
CONCLUSION: The appealed decision was OVERFINED for the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, there is no room for examining the plaintiff’s other appeals for the reason explained in paragraph (2), the fee paid in advance is returned upon request, and the decision is rectified in accordance with Article 440/III-1 of the HUMK. It was decided unanimously on 11/12/2017, being closed.
You can reach our other articles, sample decisions and petitions by clicking here.
